from the about-time dept

A few years ago, the major record labels finally started to realize that, perhaps, shoveling many millions of dollars to the RIAA was a waste of good money, and they severely cut back funds. You may have noticed that, while the RIAA had taken the lead on the copyright front in the first decade of the new century, over the past few years, it's been a lot quieter than the MPAA. It appears that the MPAA may be about to go through a similar transition. Just a few weeks ago, we pointed out that the MPAA seemed to be desperately trying to justify its existence by doubling down on ridiculous and misleading claims about "piracy" and "content theft" rather than actually helping studios adapt to the modern era. We also noted that MPAA boss Chris Dodd was on something of an apology tour after the MPAA was caught completely off guard by the Sony Hack and did basically nothing about it, seriously pissing off execs at Sony.

In a behind-the-scenes drama, the Sony Pictures chairman Michael Lynton last month told industry colleagues of a plan to withdraw from the movie trade organization, according to people who have been briefed on the discussions. He cited the organization's slow response and lack of public support in the aftermath of the attack on Sony and its film “The Interview,” as well as longstanding concerns about the cost and efficacy of the group.

While the MPAA convinced Sony to stay in, it appears that the major studios are thinking it's about time the MPAA shift its focus -- and tighten its belt a bit:

If adopted, their still emerging propositions might jolt the group into line with the new realities of a changing entertainment business. They might, for instance, open the association to new members and expand its interests to include television programs or digital content. They might also reduce the heavy annual contribution of more than $20 million that is required of each of the six member companies: Walt Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Sony.

The report notes that they might even give up their super fancy DC headquarters (the "Jack Valenti Building") which is just blocks from the White House.

Of course, it's not entirely clear how the MPAA's focus will actually change. It wouldn't be surprising to find some studio execs still want to double down on backwards-thinking, anti-internet campaigns. But, at least some seem to recognize that Hollywood hasn't kept up with the times, and that's partly because the MPAA kept focusing them on the last war, rather than on updating for the internet era.

Kevin Tsujihara, the chief executive of Warner Bros., said he, like Mr. Dodd, welcomed an examination of the organization that would mirror a similar review of cost and mission at his company. “Now is as good a time as any” to look at fundamental questions, Mr. Tsujihara said in an interview. He added: “We haven’t, as an industry, evolved fast enough.”

And, as we've pointed out, it really seems bizarre that the MPAA spends so much on an entire "content protection" division. At least some of the studios appear to be questioning the value of that approach:

But those briefed on the position of several companies said virtually all the studios have chafed lately at the high cost of maintaining the M.P.A.A., along with its worldwide antipiracy and market access operations, particularly as Sony, Warner and others are cutting staff and costs.

Frankly, as we've argued for years, it would be great if the MPAA actually became a forward-looking organization that looked to help the industry adapt to the modern era. It appears the organization is going through an inevitable crisis after years of making bad bets. Hopefully, it recognizes that embracing the future, rather than fighting it, is the way forward.

from the bye-bye-1960s-classics dept

Say goodbye to the musical hits of the 50s and 60s, if you like that sort of thing and listen via online services. Chances are they may start to disappear, as the places where you now get your streaming music realize they need to protect themselves against a possible massive liability. As we've covered for some time, there have been a few lawsuits filed recently over the licensing status of pre-1972 sound recordings. There's a lot of history here, but a short explanation is that in 1909, when Congress redid copyright law, it didn't think that sound recordings (then a relatively new concept) were copyrightable subject matter. Of course, in the years following that, as the "music business" turned into the "recording industry" pressure mounted by that industry led to a bunch of state regulations and common law creating copyright or copyright-like rights for sound recordings.

With the 1976 Copyright Act, rather than "federalizing" all sound recording copyrights, Congress basically left all pre-1972 recordings under those state laws, while effectively wiping out those laws for everything else. Since then, all copyright is under federal copyright law, but old sound recordings are still subject to those state laws. But those state laws were somewhat limited -- and at no point did anyone seriously believe that there was any sort of public performance licensing required for those recordings. Well, not until a few years ago, when some big record labels started searching under the couch cushions for other ways to squeeze money out of online services. They'd already convinced Congress to force internet streaming sites to pay compulsory performance royalties (at insanely high rates), even though radio doesn't have to pay those.

But that wasn't enough. So, they started to focus on those pre-1972 recordings and said that while those aren't subject to the compulsory rates, perhaps they could hold them hostage and force the streaming sites to pay insane amounts for them. The streaming sites, rightfully, pointed out that none of those state laws really had a public performance right as a part of it, and thus there was no licensing required to perform those works and... eventually the lawsuitsbegan.

And now additional lawsuits are starting to show up -- and you can expect a lot more of them. A holding company called Zenbu Magazines has sued Apple's Beats Music along with Google, Songza, Slacker, Rdio, Sony and Grooveshark using the same basic template as those earlier lawsuits. Zenbu claims to hold the copyrights for recordings by the Flying Burrito Brothers, Hot Tuna and New Riders of the Purple Sage. And it wants to get paid. Big time.

In fact, Zenbu is looking to make this a class action lawsuit, meaning that the holders of lots of other copyrights on pre-1972 recordings may pile on as well -- and the potential liability facing all of these streaming services could quickly grow to astronomical numbers.

Given that, it seems quite likely that at least some, if not all, of these services are going to quickly realize that their best move is to simply remove all pre-1972 recordings from their catalog. History for music may end in 1972 thanks to these self-defeating lawsuits from copyright holders desperate to squeeze extra money out of these services. It's hard to see how that benefits culture in the slightest.

from the go-on-with-your-day dept

At a cybersecurity conference at Fordham university, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper apparently claimed that the Sony Hack was "the most serious cyberattack" made to date against the US. If that's true (and it's likely not), then that really kind of undermines all the claims about just how "serious" cyberattacks are to national security. Yes, the Sony Hack was incredibly embarrassing to Sony and some individuals and partners. Yes, it may cost Sony a significant amount of money in cleaning up the mess. But no one died. No serious long-term problems were created by it. No one has to "rebuild" a city. The actual impact of the hack on the day-to-day lives of most people is next to nothing. For years, people like Clapper have been warning of the pending "cyber Pearl Harbor," and if this is the best they've got so far... sorry, but that's just not that serious.

At the same event, Clapper apparently insisted not only that he was sure North Korea was behind the hack, but that he knew who ordered it. He also revealed some more info on the (little known) fact that he had traveled to North Korea two weeks before the hack, where he met with the guy he now says is responsible. Marcy Wheeler raises some questions about whether Clapper's trip had something to do with the hack (if it really was done by North Korea).

Speaking of which, at the very same event, FBI director James Comey, once again, insisted that North Korea was responsible and claimed that the hackers "got sloppy" and revealed their own IP addresses. It could be that. Or whoever did it could have been slightly more sophisticated, leaving false markers pointing to North Korea. But, as of right now the FBI is sure that sloppiness is a better excuse.

Either way, it still seems like much more is being made of the Sony Hack than it deserves. Yes, it was a big hack, and yes, it revealed a ton of private documents that clearly has embarrassed Sony quite a bit. But if the future of war involves embarrassing big companies, rather than killing thousands of people -- I think I'd make that trade off.

from the US-Government-steadies-finger,-points dept

Never doubt the power of motion picture studios. The US government is moving ahead with plans to smack around North Korea for the Sony Pictures hack. That this is seemingly based on nothing more than a strong hunch by the FBI doesn't seem to matter. The wheels are rolling and the scapegoat will be properly chastised.

Symbolic actions and symbolic words are being handed down by the administration, under the unlikely moniker of "a proportionate response." Sanctions are being levied against ten North Korean officials, even as other unnamed administration officials admit there's no evidence those named were behind the attacks in any form. Let's all enjoy this quote, which shows the US government is willing to defend the honor of Sony Pictures even at the expense of its own reputation.

“It’s a first step,” one of the officials said. “The administration felt that it had to do something to stay on point. This is certainly not the end for them.”

There you have it. There will be more symbolic stupidity in the future, if only for consistency's sake. The next question is: if the goal is to deliver a knockout blow, how effective are continued head punches when the target has already lost consciousness?

The actions may well turn out to be more symbolic than substantive: North Korea already faces some of the heaviest sanctions of any country.

The North Korean government doesn't really care if more sanctions are handed down. It hasn't made many attempts to ingratiate itself with the US. It is resolutely its own evil empire and appears to be happy being one of the world's villains.

Once you get beyond the futile administrative shouting, there's the reality of the situation: there's really not much evidence pointing to North Korea's involvement in the Sony hack. So, even if the sanctions are effective, they're likely misguided.

The link between the hacking and the North Korean government's public damnation of "The Interview" is extremely tenuous. The hackers behind the attack never linked their actions to the film until after the press did. Additional information points in various directions, but nothing directly at the North Korean government. The evidence the FBI was willing to part with only indicates that the malware used resembles malware used in previous NK hackings -- which is really just saying malware that works well tends to resemble other malware that works well. It's not a smoking gun. It's not even a gun in a safe with the clip removed. It's a finger in a coat pocket -- something that only looks slightly dangerous/damning when hidden, but completely ridiculous when out in the open.

But the US government has decided North Korea is to blame and the North Korean government is only too happy to alternate between evil empire and unfairly besmirched world citizen. The question is: who is the administration scoring points for by pursuing sanctions against an entity that hacked a private corporation? Even if the administration is privy to information that definitively indicates North Korea's involvement, why is it throwing its weight behind an incident that was more embarrassing than damaging? Countless American businesses have been hacked over the past several years, leaving millions of Americans' personal information exposed… and little to no response from the US government. But spring loose a few thousand internal emails dealing with celebrity squabbling, MPAA/state AG collusion and other internal issues, and suddenly, it's time for America to go to (cyber)war.

from the still-pretty-sure dept

After the FBI formally named North Korea as being behind the Sony Hack, a lot of people in the cybersecurity community explained why they didn't find the evidence at all compelling. There was pretty widespread disbelief in the story -- though most admitted that it was possible that the FBI had additional evidence it wasn't sharing. In the past few days, a lot of attention has been paid to a theory coming out of Norse Security, that the attack really came from a group of people (not associated with North Korea) including, in particular, a disgruntled ex-Sony employee. On Monday, the FBI met with Norse to hear what the company had to say, but apparently came away unconvinced. The FBI continues to stand by its assertion that North Korea did it.

Asked about the meeting and criticism on Monday, the FBI declined to comment beyond a prepared statement that they are confident the North Koreans are behind the crippling Thanksgiving attack and there is “no credible information” to suggest otherwise.

Tuesday, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said after the three-hour meeting, law enforcement concluded that the company’s analysis “did not improve the knowledge of the investigation.”

Ouch. Once again, it is entirely possible that the FBI has access to even more information that it has not shared. However, it does seem rather clear at this point that the evidence it has shared publicly is just as unconvincing to cybersecurity experts as the information those security experts have shared is unconvincing to the FBI.

from the owning-facts dept

There have been a lot of interesting questions to come out of the Sony Hack. And the story of the hack itself is certainly quite fascinating (in fact, as some have pointed out, the story of the hack still seems a lot more compelling than the plot of The Interview -- the movie some still want to associate with the hack, even as the evidence appears thin). So if the "true life" story of the hack is a movie waiting to be made, that raises some other intriguing questions. Parker Higgins wondered if Sony would option the screenplay itself, or if it would let a competing studio get it. Of course, that (correctly) assumes that the screenplay itself would be controlled by whoever wrote it, and that Sony wouldn't have any direct ownership interest in it otherwise.

But you could see where some would argue that this is somehow unfair. As we've pointed out for years, however, you can't own a copyright on facts. The basic news of something is factual and not covered by copyright -- though some of the reporting on it could be covered by copyright. In fact, we've noted how interesting it is that movie studios often license news stories from newspapers or reporters, even though they don't need to. In many cases, they could make a movie based on the news without making a deal with the journalists, but they still choose to do so, because there are certain advantages in doing it that way -- including having the reporters who know the story well give input into the film. It's a pretty good example of how contractual deals can often work even when there's no underlying copyright to be had.

But this gets pretty interesting when it comes down to the Sony Hack. First, among the odd legal theories tossed out by Sony's high-priced lawyers, is that the hacked information is Sony's "stolen information," and thus it might claim some sort of ownership right to the information, should any movie portrayal show/discuss the content of the hacked documents. That argument would raise an interesting First Amendment problem. Second, Sony could try a variety of other (mostly questionable) means of trying to block someone else from making the movie, using anything from trademark to publicity rights of some of the people involved. If challenged in court, it seems unlikely that these reasons would hold up, but it could make it difficult for a non-Sony studio to make such a film.

And, of course, it seems doubtful that Sony itself would want to make the film -- especially not one that accurately portrays a company that has been hacked 56 times in 12 years and kept its passwords in a folder named "Passwords" at the time of the hack. So, instead, it's entirely possible that someone else might try to make the movie -- and Sony might use legal bluster to try to stop it. Which is too bad, because such a movie seems like it might be a lot more interesting than some of what's been coming out of Hollywood lately...

from the because-of-course dept

It almost always seems to come out that the most aggressive "anti-piracy" people, companies and organizations are engaged in some form of copyright infringement themselves. There was Nicolas Sarkozy, former President of France who initiated the idea of a "three copyright strikes and you lose access to the internet" program, but who also apparently was mass pirating DVDs. Even the MPAA -- an organization whose entire reputation is basically wrapped up in its anti-piracy efforts -- has a history of infringing on others' copyrights when it's convenient. The latest example is Sony Pictures.

As we've been covering, Sony was among those involved in the MPAA's plot to attack Google by paying for state Attorneys General investigations into Google, a company that the MPAA still thinks isn't doing "enough" to stop piracy online. Yet, now it comes out that in The Interview -- a movie whose plotline has become intertwined with the Sony Hack -- Sony used some music that it did not license. The musicians in question are now threatening to sue:

Tiger JK and Yoon Mi-rae (a.k.a. Tasha Reid)'s agency FeelGhoodMusic said Friday in a press release that the two's duet piece, "Pay Day," is featured in the Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy, but a contract was never signed. About 10 to 15 seconds of the song appears in the film.

"There were initial discussions about including the song in the film score, but negotiations stopped so we were under the impression that it wasn't happening," said the press release. "It was only after the film was released that we became aware of the song's unauthorized use, without taking the appropriate and necessary steps to complete a contract with the artists."

The label also noted that the musicians were hesitant to license the music for this movie at all, given that "the film is a very sensitive topic in Korea." Oh really? I hadn't noticed.

Of course the likelihood of this ever getting to court is basically nil. Sony will pay up to make it go away quietly without a trial. And, as Sarah Jeong helpfully points out, Sony has insurance to pay for these kinds of mistakes.

The larger point here isn't even that Sony is a hypocritical assholish company when it comes to copyright (on both sides of the question). Rather, it's that the entire copyright system is broken, and this little incident demonstrates that once again in multiple ways:

First, if Sony were to get sued, it would face the exact same penalties as someone sitting at home who downloaded or shared an unauthorized copy of the same exact song. It's difficult to see how that's even close to reasonable, but that's the way copyright law is structured today, with no real way to distinguish between a blatant commercial abuse for use in a high profile movie, and totally non-commercial use by a fan. Either way, you're facing $750 to $150,000 in statutory damages (the cap is $30,000 if the infringement isn't "willful" -- but copyright holders will claim that the file sharer at home is willful infringement).

Second, it shows that everyone infringes all the time. Whether meaning to or not, it's actually fairly difficult to avoid infringing on copyrights. That's not to say that accidental copyright infringement is what's happening with file sharers or with Sony's use of the music here, but under the law, it's pretty much all the same. The fact that, as noted above, some of the biggest copyright system defenders are found out to infringe should highlight this issue pretty clearly. Even when you are a strong believer in copyright, there are going to be some situations in which you screw up and break the law. Given how frequently this happens, it certainly seems like the problem is with the law rather than all the people.

In the end, this story will quickly go away, because Sony will fork over some cash and everyone will forget this ever happened. But for someone at home who just wants to check out a movie, these kinds of threats and lawsuits can absolutely destroy them. And Sony doesn't care one bit about that.

from the funny-how-that-works dept

To me, the biggest story to come out of the Sony Hack remains how the MPAA and the major studios were conspiring to attack Google by paying for state Attorneys General to drum up silly investigations of the company. Most everyone else in the press seems much more focused on the gossip and, of course, what happens to The Interview, the Seth Rogen/James Franco movie that some think was the reason for the hack in the first place (even if the evidence on that remains questionable). Either way, as you know, Sony briefly shelved the plans to release the movie (which has fairly dreadful reviews from those who have seen it), but then decided to allow a few independent theaters to show it, followed by the announcement this morning that it would stream the movie via YouTube.

There are lots of bizarre story lines related to this -- including, apparently, Apple turning Sony down when approached with a similar deal for iTunes. Or the whole idea of how this might actually show the Hollywood studios the value of releasing movies online at the same time as in theaters (a message many have been trying to send Hollywood for ages, which Hollywood is quite resistant to). And, of course, there's the whole story line about a giant company being bullied by a few stray threats about showing the film in theaters, which almost no one thinks were serious.

Still, the story that is most fascinating to me is tying this whole thing back to that original story, about "Project Goliath" and the plan to conspire to attack Google -- and the fact that when Sony needed to find a place to stream the film, it turned to YouTube, a Google-owned company. Huh. Of course, this fits with the long history of the legacy entertainment industry lashing out and attacking the creators of the innovations that industry most needs. The recording industry attacked radio when it first came on the scene, though it eventually enabled the music industry to grow so big. Hollywood, famously, claimed the VCR was "the Boston Stranger" to the movie industry -- yet four years after that statement was made, home video brought in more revenue for Hollywood than the box office. The RIAA sued one of the first MP3 players, yet digital music is a major, growing source of revenue these days. And, of course, Viacom engaged in a many years-long battled with YouTube.

Maybe, just maybe, one of these days the legacy entertainment players will get the message that innovators and entrepreneurs aren't the enemy. They're the ones providing Hollywood (and music and other industries) with all the tools to better serve the market.

from the don't-they-have-lawyers-who-understand-the-law dept

David Boies is a bigtime lawyer -- perhaps one of the most famous lawyers around. He worked on the antitrust cases against both IBM and Microsoft. He was Al Gore's lawyer over the contested 2000 election. He was even Napster's lawyer when it got sued by the RIAA. Of course, he also represented SCO in its ill-fated lawsuits. He was Oracle's lawyer in its lawsuit against Google over the use of Java in Android. Come to think of it, Boies -- despite all his fame -- seems to come out on the losing end of an awful lot of these high profile lawsuits. And, these days, he's representing Sony Pictures in trying to deal with the hack. As mentioned, a week or so ago, he sent off a bunch of very ill-advised threat letters to news publications writing about the Sony hack (tragically, we never received one, though someone from Boies' office did appear to call us and hang up before leaving a message -- seriously). Then, we just had a story about someone from Sony threatening a Twitter user for posting screenshots from leaked emails.

The letter—sent from David Boies, the lawyer Sony has hired to help guide it through the aftermath of the hack, to Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s general counsel—says that if “stolen information continues to be disseminated by Twitter in any manner,” Sony will “hold Twitter responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by Twitter.”

You have to assume that someone with Boies' stature, or at least one of the young lawyers that must be employed by his firm, is familiar with Section 230 of the CDA, because this is a classic case in which Twitter has absolute immunity from any kind of legal threat. And just the fact that Boies would threaten Twitter over this seems monumentally stupid. Not only does it make Boies and Sony look like bumbling fools, it just calls more attention to the fact that people are tweeting details from the Sony hacks.

You can read the full letter [pdf], which was provided by Vice's Motherboard blog which broke this story, and see how ridiculous this is. Most of the letter is really focused on arguing that Twitter should kill the account of the user we mentioned yesterday who Sony is trying to intimidate. It goes through all sorts of twists and turns to argue that the user, Val Broeksmit, is breaking Twitter's terms of service and his account should be closed. It mostly focuses on the tired publishing "Stolen Information" as if that's a thing. So Boies argues that it violates Twitter's terms of service, and then throws out a somewhat random selection of laws -- almost all of which certainly don't apply to Broeksmit or Twitter:

We understand that the Account Holder’s publication of this Stolen Information is (and
any other account holder’s similar use would be) in violation of numerous provisions of
Twitter’s Terms of Use, including the prohibitions against (i) publishing copyrighted materials
and “other people's private and confidential information... without their express authorization
and permission,” and (ii) use of Twitter “for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal
activities.”

Of course, here's the main problem: while some of the laws likely apply to whoever hacked Sony, basically none of them apply to someone then publishing the leaked documents. As has been explained time and time again, the First Amendment protections for publishing such information are pretty strong and there's miles of case law to support that. Boies' attempt to get around that is a massive stretch. His argument that posting this information violates Sony's copyright is, of course, ridiculously weak. The fair use arguments for publishing such info are very strong. Even worse is that the CFAA claim applied not to the original hackers, but to Twitter users posting information, seems based on Boies pretending that a terms of service violation is a form of hacking. But that's a theory (thankfully) been rejected in recent years by the courts. The state law claims also seem fairly weak on a variety of levels and just reek of piling on.

And as Popehat points out, Boies may be committing an ethical violation in using threats of criminal prosecution (under the CFAA -- which has both criminal and civil parts) to gain civil advantage -- which violates California's rules of professional conduct for lawyers. Of course, these are the kinds of rules that aren't often applied to lawyers, and especially not those with Boies' stature.

Taking it a step further, even if Broeksmit were breaking the law, Twitter is -- as mentioned -- protected from nearly all liability via Section 230 of the CDA. Not that Boies appears to care:

If Twitter does not comply with this request, and the Stolen Information continues to be
disseminated by Twitter in any manner, SPE will have no choice but to hold Twitter responsible
for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by Twitter, including any damages
or loss to SPE or others, and including, but not limited to, any loss of value of intellectual
property and trade secrets resulting from Twitter’s actions.

Yeah, that's not how the law works. Of course, Boies brings up intellectual property because the CDA explicitly doesn't apply to intellectual property -- but, again, the IP claims raised by Boies are already pretty weak and Twitter has other pretty strong protections for the copyright side of things. Furthermore, Twitter would have a strong argument that Boies is just claiming IP as a weak attempt to get around the Section 230 protections. Finally, it would seem that this is a pretty clear attempt at a SLAPP, giving Twitter the protections of California's strong anti-SLAPP laws -- meaning that if Sony actually sued, it may have to pay Twitter for bringing a frivolous suit designed to shut people up. Basically, Boies is making a lot of noise without much legal basis -- and, in the process, calling tremendous attention to one guy who's been finding a bunch of interesting things in the emails.

We've already discussed how bad Sony's computer security strategy has been -- and now it seems like its legal strategy is equally brain-dead.

from the that-one-time-when-a-major-corporation-shot-itself-in-the-face dept

In a sharply worded letter sent to news organizations, including The New York Times, David Boies, a lawyer for Sony, characterized the documents posted online as “stolen information” and demanded that they be avoided, and destroyed if they had already been downloaded or otherwise acquired.

The studio “does not consent to your possession, review, copying, dissemination, publication, uploading, downloading or making any use” of the information, Mr. Boies wrote in a three-page letter sent Sunday morning to the legal departments of media organizations.

Somebody approved this -- someone higher up than David Boies. And that someone should probably step down and concentrate on staining his yacht deck or seeking to be nominated in the next Congressional election, or whatever it is studio execs do when they've outlived their usefulness.

The letter's wording [pdf link] makes it sound as though the press outlets are doing something illegal (mainly through repetitive use of the word "stolen") but is careful never to make that actual claim. It tries to bluster its way towards legitimacy by inserting a list of "in case of 'stolen' information" requests (worded to look like legal demands) into the letter.

As soon as you suspect that you may have possession of any of the Stolen Information*, we ask that you

(1) notify us using the contact information provided below;

(2) take all reasonable actions to prevent your company and any of your employees, independent contractors, agents, consultants, or anyone who may have access to your files from examining, copying, disseminating, distributing, publishing, downloading,uploading, or making any other use of the Stolen Information;

(3) arrange for and supervise the destruction of all copies of the Stolen Information in your possession or under your control, particularly information protected under US. and foreign legal doctrines protecting attorney-client privileged communications, attorney work product, and related privileges and protections, as well as private financial and other confidential information and communications of current and former personnel and others, confidential personnel data, intellectual property, trade secrets andother business secrets and related communications; and

(4) confirm that such destruction has been completed.**

In addition, if you have provided the Stolen Information to anyone outside of your company, we ask that you provide them with a copy of this letter, and request the destruction of the Stolen Information by the recipient.

[*"Stolen Information" being much more sensitive than your garden variety, lower-case "stolen information," obvs.] [**"Recycle Bin had little pieces of paper in it, but now appears to be empty."]

I imagine the contact information provided is swiftly being bombarded with ridicule, fake tips, more ridicule, more fake tips and pictures of empty Recycle Bins.

The only threat in the document (other than the overall tone) is this:

If you do not comply with this request, and the Stolen Information is used or disseminated by you in any manner, SPE will have no choice but to hold you responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by you, including any damages or loss to SPE or others, and including, but not limited to, any loss of value of intellectual property and trade secrets resulting from your actions.

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception.

The only mitigating factor is the relative worth of the "stolen information" to the public interest. Much of what's been covered likely isn't and much of what's contained in the files that hasn't been disseminated by press outlets definitely isn't. But there are some revelations that are definitely matters of public interest, not the least of which is the MPAA's plan to throw money at elected officials in exchange for some Google-hassling.

Sony appears to be in full panic mode, but it's tough to sympathize with a corporation that has been hacked 56 times in 12 years but still keeps passwords in a folder labeled "Passwords." This latest move won't earn it anything more than an internetload of derision.